<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU text
- To: "Stéphane_Van_Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU text
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:10:05 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>...for the CONCEPT of SRSU. What you and Milton are
ignoring is that there is no agreement on what SRSU means. It invokes different
ideas in each of our minds.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The statement I made is true. The term "substantial" is subjective and I
oppose using it in regards to anything in this report. General agreement is as
close as we have come on any of this.</div>
<div><BR> </div>
<div><BR></div>
<div>Tim </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-FAMILY:
verdana; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=replyBlockquote
webmail="1">
<DIV id=wmQuoteWrapper>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re:
[gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU text<BR>From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <<a
href="mailto://stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx";>stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>Date:
Tue, July 20, 2010 2:36 am<BR>To: Milton L Mueller <<a
href="mailto://mueller@xxxxxxx";>mueller@xxxxxxx</a>><BR>Cc: Tim Ruiz <<a
href="mailto://tim@xxxxxxxxxxx";>tim@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>>, "<a
href="mailto://gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a>"<BR><<a
href="mailto://gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a>><BR><BR><BR>I
would just shorten that to "SRSU has substantial support" and consider that a
fair representation of the opinions within this group. But I don't think it's
useful to make the assertions you make in the rest of the sentence. Whether
those assertions are true or not helps very little in the context of the final
report. However, I agree those who oppose the concept of SRSU might want their
opposition noted in the report.<BR><BR>Stéphane<BR><BR>Le 20 juil. 2010 à
05:22, Milton L Mueller a écrit :<BR><BR>> <BR>> Tim,<BR>> Your
4-point summary is pretty good, except for #3. <BR>> <BR>> The report
should note that SRSU has substantial support; in particular, we should point
out that representatives from both user Stakeholder Groups are solidly behind
it; and that the main opposition to SRSU comes from incumbent registries and
registrars who are concerned about its competitive implications. Even so, some
prospective registries also support the notion. <BR>> <BR>> --MM<BR>>
<BR>>> -----Original Message-----<BR>>> From: <a
href="mailto://owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a>
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-<BR>>> <a
href="mailto://feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a>] On Behalf Of Tim
Ruiz<BR>>> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 6:57 PM<BR>>> To: <a
href="mailto://gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a><BR>>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU text<BR>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> There's been a lot of discussion about the compliance piece, so I
guess<BR>>> if we get more detailed about that, it's fine. But here is
what I would<BR>>> prefer to see in the report regarding Exceptions,
SRSU, and compliance:<BR>>> <BR>>> "It is impossible to know or
completely understand all potential<BR>>> business models that may be
represented by new gTLD applicants. That<BR>>> fact has been an obstacle
to finding consensus on policy that defines<BR>>> clear, bright line
rules for allowing vertical integration and a<BR>>> compliance framework
to support it while ensuring that such policy is<BR>>> practical and
beneficial in the public interest. However, there is<BR>>> general
acceptance within the Working Group for the following:<BR>>> <BR>>>
1. Certain new gTLDs likely to be applied for in the first round will
be<BR>>> unnecessarily impacted by restrictions on cross-ownership or
control<BR>>> between registrar and registry.<BR>>> <BR>>> 2.
The need for a process that would allow applicants to request<BR>>>
exceptions and be considered on a case by case basis. The reasons
for<BR>>> exceptions and the conditions under which exceptions would be
allowed,<BR>>> varied widely in the group.<BR>>> <BR>>> 3.
The concept of Single Registrant Single User should be explored<BR>>>
further.<BR>>> <BR>>> 4. The need for enhanced compliance efforts
and the need for a detailed<BR>>> compliance plan in relation to the new
gTLD program in general."<BR>>> <BR>>> All of the details on above
are so new that I don't see how consensus<BR>>> can truly be determined,
especially when some of it is still be created<BR>>> and edited.
Otherwise, I have no doubt that when the report is finally<BR>>> posted
there will be edits or other material included that some of us<BR>>> will
not have had the chance to even see. If we go with the above we can<BR>>>
close those three things off pretty quickly.<BR>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> Tim<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> -------- Original
Message --------<BR>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU
text<BR>>> From: Eric Brunner-Williams <<a
href="mailto://ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>>>
Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:14 pm<BR>>> To: "Rosette, Kristina" <<a
href="mailto://krosette@xxxxxxx";>krosette@xxxxxxx</a>>,<BR>>> "<a
href="mailto://Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a>" <<a
href="mailto://Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>>>
<BR>>> <BR>>> Kristina,<BR>>> <BR>>> Comments on the
SRSU text. The form is call and response.<BR>>> <BR>>>
Eric<BR>>> <BR>>> Page 1, Para 1, sentence 3:<BR>>> "Within
the VI Working Group, there was a general endorsement of the<BR>>> idea
of an SRSU exception."<BR>>> <BR>>> I suggest qualifying this by
observing that advocates for policy<BR>>> choices other than broad
continuity included an SRSU exception,<BR>>> explicit in proposals which
otherwise contained conditional<BR>>> cross-ownership language, and
implicit in proposals which removed<BR>>> cross-ownership restriction,
and that in the Brussels meeting period,<BR>>> when compromises were
attempted, a limited exception to Recommendation<BR>>> 19 was offered by
the advocates for broad policy continuity.<BR>>> <BR>>> I know it
is a lot more words and takes away from the punch of the<BR>>> claim, but
it could be more useful to show which policy advocates<BR>>> found common
cause with the committed SRSU policy advocates.<BR>>> <BR>>> Para
2, sentence 2:<BR>>> "... that satisfied additional criteria intended to
limit the<BR>>> applicability of the exceptions and to discourage abuse
and gaming of<BR>>> the exceptions."<BR>>> <BR>>> This is
advocacy. Please consider cutting it.<BR>>> <BR>>> Para 2, Types of
SRSU exceptions, sentence 3:<BR>>> "Several WG participants who are
members of the Non-Commercial<BR>>> Stakeholders Group proposed an SRSU
exception for non-governmental<BR>>> organization registries (NGOs)
(referred to as .ngo registry) ..."<BR>>> <BR>>> I have no issue
with calling attention to the SG affiliation of any<BR>>> advocate, but
implicit in this is something false. The previous<BR>>> sentence has the
IPC as a body making a proposal based upon real<BR>>> self-interest. This
sentence elevates the association of these WG<BR>>> participants who are
members of the NC SG as advocates for NGOs as<BR>>> recipients of a broad
cross-ownership and/or Recommendation 19<BR>>> exception, and implicitly
their interests, to the same level as the<BR>>> IPC and its membership of
brand owners.<BR>>> <BR>>> This association is false unless there
are one or more NGOs which<BR>>> authorized these NC SG members to act on
their behalf, as brand owners<BR>>> have authorized their IPC SG members,
to pursue indistinguishable ends.<BR>>> <BR>>> Has any NGO asked
for an exception? The Red Cross contacted CORE and<BR>>> it did not, to
the best of my knowledge, ask for a SRSU exception. It<BR>>> asked for a
fraud solution and brand protection application, which is<BR>>> not a
registration policy so narrow as to admit only one registrant.<BR>>>
<BR>>> We are not talking about the interests of imaginary brands. We are
not<BR>>> allowing random people to claim "they speak for XYZ Corp and
its<BR>>> portfolio of brands". We should not entertain claims so
conjectural as<BR>>> a claim that some VI WG volunteer may appropriate
the good name of<BR>>> some public interest entity to advance claims that
lack any other basis.<BR>>> <BR>>> The requirement that a policy
advocate represents an actual applicant<BR>>> is something that can't be
satisfied now, it has to have been<BR>>> demonstrable when the policy was
first advocated.<BR>>> <BR>>> Para 2, Types of SRSU exceptions,
sentence 4.<BR>>> <BR>>> Please consider cutting this. If you and
I, who've both been watching<BR>>> this issue like hawks, can't think of
the reason, it isn't enough to<BR>>> add to the word count.<BR>>>
<BR>>> Page 2, para 1, sentence 1:<BR>>> <BR>>> This is
advocacy. Please consider cutting it.<BR>>> <BR>>> Para 1, sentence
2:<BR>>> <BR>>> This is advocacy. Please consider cutting
it.<BR>>> <BR>>> Para 1, sentence 3:<BR>>> <BR>>> This
is policy. Please don't cut it.<BR>>> <BR>>> End.<BR>>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR><BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|